Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[American Dream]

Thanks- that's a useful point but I wouldn't say it defines my reading list. It is though a portion of my posting list for providing counterpoint to far right/confusionist sources. Before I came to R.I., I knew such things existed but I wasn't aware of the scope of the material nor of the variety of present day adherents.

Part of my self-defined "mission", if you will, is to make sure that such materials are available here. I can't- and won't- force others to consider these critiques of the forces of Reaction but it seems important to make them available in case they want to. It matters very little to me whether they are in dedicated threads, interspersed within other threads, or some combination of the two. You do make a generally valid point about echo chambers and self-brainwashing, however.

Louis Proyect, Andrew Coates, Wahid Azal, Oakland Socialist, A Roaming Vagabond, Bob from Brockley etc.

It occurs to me that if all you're reading is Louis Proyect, Andrew Coates, Wahid Azal, Oakland Socialist, A Roaming Vagabond, Bob from Brockley, Shiraz Socialist etc., you might be caught in a self-reinforcing loop that leaves you less open to critical consideration of evidence that might contradict their positions. Just something to think about if one immerses oneself in a single viewpoint, which those sites seems to share when it comes to events Syria and attitudes about Russia.

[American Dream]

@srp

I don't really think anyone can force this board to "shape up" but I strongly do believe that moderators can help moderate our unruly tendencies by sustaining the guidelines that we actually do have and doing so in a consistent, accountable and fair-minded way.

I appreciate your efforts in that direction.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Part of my self-defined "mission", if you will, is to make sure that such materials are available here.

How would you react to someone with an equivalent 'mission' to post, say, Alex Jones content here, at face-value, same as you post your (questionable) materials?

[Elvis]

Dammit, Mac, would you stop getting yourself suspended! Just put Wrex's quote in your signature, and you won't have to type out a polemic every time.

[82_28]

As far as Mac, SRP and I both lamented the fact that anything should have to be done at all. However, if we are going to allow accusations and insults to fly freely then nobody benefits and no matter what we may think of the forum now, it is still civilized. Everyone may be sick of me comparing it to running a bar, but that's how I consider it. People are going to spout off, espouse an unpopular opinion, share a link or two to something they may not be involved in but rubs someone the wrong way, all in all it remains business as usual. But, when someone who is as likable as the next person begins to disrupt the flow of "business", ideas, the comfort of others, animus only festers. We are sentient entities who possess unique approaches and personalities. Nobody should have to prove who and what they are under any degree of duress. Like it or not, this is the Internet and essentially we are who we say we are. We are not who we are accused of being. Thus, lengthy accusations of the type Mac employed will sadly have to be dealt with and deemed ultimately, disruptive.

[mentalgongfu2]

Dammit, Mac, would you stop getting yourself suspended! Just put Wrex's quote in your signature, and you won't have to type out a polemic every time.

If I cared, I could pull out things Mac said that have gotten him suspended prior to our current moderators, just as he did with AD.
There is no point.
The advent of new moderators here at RI is either going to result in people altering their behavior, or people being permanently banned.
I'm all for it.
If you can't converse without insults, take your ass to Redditt or 4chan or Twitter - anywhere but RI.

[peartreed]

This is just a quick acknowledgement that the mods, SRP and 82-28, are now demonstrating some impressive, judicious decisions that I fully support. I disagreed on the Burnt Hill decision to suspend and said so, much like format changes I disagree with, but consensus isn't required when it's their call. I also appreciate the PM feedback from people I respect.

While we may not agree on every rationale or decision, their volunteer efforts and intentions are still admirable in a thankless and difficult role. That is much appreciated.

[Burnt Hill]

I will echo everything peartreed said above, especially in regards to appreciation towards our new moderators.

My bold -

American Dream » Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:03 pm wrote:
I never said that I agree absolutely with the writings of others which I may post here, nor do I think awe should assume that of anyone here. This always was a staple of the the FM radio work I did in rhe wake of the Fairness Act: "These words are the words of those that said 'em", or something to that general effect.

stillrobertpaulson replied:
It's not good to assume, it is good to ask. Two different posters, Elvis and Belligerent Savant, noted their disproval of the offending passage in the article, which they probably would not have if you had posted an amending comment as I previously advised. Since you didn't reply to them, they probably assumed, as I did, that you had no problem with it. Which is a reasonable assumption if you're not going to bother to discuss it.

I would like to say that I vehemently disagree with this approach by any moderator towards any contributor. There is rarely an essential need to assume the worst from anyone here.

I find AD's refusal to respond to posters with an unfriendly inflection quite courageous and healthful.

Yes, I agree with peartreed's words above!
I am also wary as I feel a sense of thought control as reflected by the interaction I posted here and certainly by having had just been suspended.

[Belligerent Savant]

.


Burnt Hill:

I find AD's refusal to respond to posters with an unfriendly inflection quite courageous and healthful.

Yes, but he also quite regularly refuses to respond to earnest inquiry as well, though there appears to have been an effort more recently to respond to questions by select members, which is a good sign; a fair amount of the content he pastes here -- especially around the topic of Syria -- simply does not pass even first-level scrutiny. Such content, in RI, should rightfully be challenged (in courteous fashion).

(Take a look at the last page of the Crisis Actors thread as an example. As I mentioned in that thread, I will make it a point to avoid "unfriendly inflection" moving forward in the interest of obtaining feedback when questions are raised around content requiring further examination. This is the spirit of RI, after all, isn't it? To further examine and analyze news events and the subsequent presentation of these events to the public -- increasingly, we are bombarded with an onslaught of white noise. Historically, RI has been a place where we collectively share and also vet information presented.)

[Burnt Hill]

Absolutely challenge the content!

If no one defends the content than the content might be crap.
That's the way I look at it.
And a lot of it is crap, but it is crap I would not even be aware of if AD had not posted it.

I do hope communication continues to improve here, including between you and AD, and it is obvious to me you are making the effort. The forum is a better place when we all make that effort.

[American Dream]

Hmm- I don't think I can take things at surface level here. BS knows I put them on ignore a long, long time ago and does not want to take no for an answer. Turning on the "Foe" setting is a rare honor for me and it came only after a lot of trying to peacefully coexist on my part, then biting the bullet and trying to let things calm down and ultimately giving up and turning to the "ignore" function.

I strongly disagree with welcoming far right influences into conspiracy culture. This comes out visibly around the issues of Syria, red-brown alliances, anti-Imperialisms, etc. etc. I really just don't see things remotely like they do and their method of dealing with it includes more toxic aggression than I want to deal with. So they want "dialogue" with me? Really? Seems like a bad proposition. The "no" is final.

I'll let it go at that.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I strongly disagree with welcoming far right influences into conspiracy culture.

disclaimer: I'm not certain I understand what the above phrase is even intended to mean, let alone how AD defines it, but operating on my guesstimate of his intent:

...who here AGREES with welcoming "far right" (a phrase you seem to apply to anyone not in lockstep with your ideology) influence into "conspiracy culture" (however that may be defined)? Surely you're not referring to me? If so, it's an outright mischaracterization. Please cite examples of this or otherwise retract that false statement. If I'm misreading you -- your language does not make it clear -- the statement remains faulty as NO current members (the few that remain, that is) in this board are "welcoming far right influence". Again, please cite examples of this or otherwise retract.

Also, you never said "no" to me. You never addressed me, period. I'm going to paste the most recent questions I've posed in other threads to you, based on what I find to be faulty material you pasted in this forum. Please identify your issue with these questions, and also, how they may possibly be deemed "far right" in tone. I extend this question to anyone else reading this: by all means, chime in as well.

I'd like to believe you're being genuine here, but it's precisely these types of responses that have me questioning your true intent (and I'm far from alone in this sentiment). You'll be pleased to hear I'll be taking a break from this space for a while -- my energy can (and should) be dedicated to far more productive endeavors.

Questions in bold below:

.

Snopes is not a reliable source for research, certainly not as a legitimate means of investigative analysis into the Syrian chemical attacks.

Also - I inquired about this in a prior thread, but my understanding is that there has yet to be any "official" confirmation/corroboration of the claims made by the U.S./UK Re: Assad's role in this attack.


Has anything changed along those lines?

(no answer provided)

.

White Supremacists And Conspiracy Theorists Rage Over Syrian ‘False Flag’ Attack

So essentially, the implication is anyone that questions thus-far unproven claims Assad was behind the Syrian Chemical attacks is in alignment with White Supremacists and "Conspiracy Theorists".

It's precisely these sweeping, agenda-driven statements/headings that should raise flags. Part of the reason this content is met with some disdain is that a sizable stable of discerning readers here will not fall prey to such sub-par, disingenuous tactics.

The article attached to that heading is no less agenda-driven (and suspect) than anything provided by Alex Jones. Why is it being presented here as a legit alternative viewpoint?

Along with Mac, I also do not follow your preface:

I think we ourselves have done far too much towards bringing on this current state of affairs.

Clarification would be appreciated. As of now my interpretation is that you agree with the premise of the article.

Let's back up a bit:

Where is the evidence that Assad was behind the Syrian Chemical Attacks?

Of the articles that appear to be critical of any "false flag" claims, how many of them have provided evidence/hard facts that the chemical attacks were sourced to an Assad directive? This is noteworthy given we've yet to obtain even "official" evidence/proof of the source of these attacks (if there's been an update to this, please share; haven't been in a position to review recent developments yet).

Why do you suppose these articles are operating under the premise these chemical attacks occurred as the U.S./UK/France claim?

(Anyone is welcome to answer)

No answers provided to any of the above questions. Existing members (and lurkers, chime in!) are welcome to re-frame these questions in a manner that may better suit AD's purported sensibilities. You may well have better luck obtaining a straight response. Given history here, however, chances are quite slim.

Arrivederci, e buona fortuna.

[Burnt Hill]

Also - I inquired about this in a prior thread, but my understanding is that there has yet to be any "official" confirmation/corroboration of the claims made by the U.S./UK Re: Assad's role in this attack.

So yeah that is the question right now.
Of course it comes from one narrative.
I don't trust any of the players involved.
I can't accept any evidence as absolute proof of anything here.
I can process information provided by all sides and have drawn zero conclusions on what is happening in Syria.
It almost ends up not mattering what did or didn't really happen, and that is incredibly frustrating.

[peartreed]

Burnt Hill is, again, bang on.

I also disagree with the premise that any article posted here can be assumed to be the view of the person posting it unless that person adds a personal qualifier.

Every one of us, and every reporter out there, has subjective views that differ from one another – just like everyone else in society worldwide. The better reporters try to remain objective in their news article writing, but bias inevitably creeps in. Simply sharing those articles on this board does not constitute endorsement.

A dynamic discussion board should have its focus on the substance of the news and views, not on the personality or attitudes of the individual posting items to discuss, and especially not on subjective assumptions made about their personal character and suspicious motivations. Misconceptions abound when ad hominem accusations arise. When insults and bullying take over the schoolyard it reflects immaturity.

Primitive survival instincts impel a tribal and territorial protection inclination in us all to align with like-minded people who share our objectives, and to fight intruders who threaten our beliefs with defensive or offensive aggression as a group.

Civilization is still that jungle just below the superficialities of today’s society. But peace depends on growth, education, empathy and expansion of our perspective. Tolerance of the individuality of others is the key to peaceful coexistence, and its absence leads to ignorance, conflict, confrontation, acrimony, argument and, ultimately, war.

So let’s keep the conflicts centered on content and not regress to interpersonal acrimony based on false assumptions made by reading between the lines and imagining who is on the other end, warts and all. Instead, let's celebrate our individual uniqueness and views. That gives the board variety and lively interest in diverse discussions.

[Belligerent Savant]

Also - I inquired about this in a prior thread, but my understanding is that there has yet to be any "official" confirmation/corroboration of the claims made by the U.S./UK Re: Assad's role in this attack.

So yeah that is the question right now.
Of course it comes from one narrative.
I don't trust any of the players involved.
I can't accept any evidence as absolute proof of anything here.
I can process information provided by all sides and have drawn zero conclusions on what is happening in Syria.
It almost ends up not mattering what did or didn't really happen, and that is incredibly frustrating.

Your response is what is desired (you're the ideal demo). AD's intent is to act as a noise amplifier, which in turn minimizes the potential for signal -- clarity -- on a given issue.

Keep the signal/noise ratio skewed towards noise. Indeed, at 18K+ posts, it takes some effort.

AD's advantage is that he appears to have ample time (an understatement) on his hands for such prolific output. However:

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.